On 13/12/2021 21:21, Rich Bowen wrote: > > > On 12/13/21 12:00, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:45, lejeczek via CentOS-devel >> <centos-devel at centos.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 13/11/2021 23:00, Carl George wrote: >>>> We're getting close to launching epel9-next (built >>>> against CentOS >>>> Stream 9), just currently blocked by a Fedora s390x >>>> infrastructure >>>> issue before we can finalize it and announce it. >>>> >>>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/UYRS43SV6ERPL2VIGR4XQACNHENFHH2N/ >>>> >>>> >>>> epel9 (built against RHEL9) won't exist until after the >>>> RHEL9 GA release. >>>> >>>> On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 12:51 PM lejeczek via CentOS-devel >>> and a month later... >>> It's taking somewhat long. >>> >>> I'll ask a question not just I must be thinking - obvious >>> rather - is that wise to let one arch be a such a blocker >>> for the whole lot? >>> >> >> It isn't blocking anylonger. You seem to have missed the >> various >> emails about EPEL-9 being built for the last several weeks. >> >> https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/9/ >> https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/testing/9/ >> https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/next/9/ >> https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/testing/next/9/ > > Also > https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/epel-9-is-now-available/ > on December 3rd. > > If it is all functional and ready for consumption - why not include its package in default(s) repo (as it's been with all previous CentOSes) instead of adding more instructions & howtos. Then 'dnf repoinfo' should give out enough info for admin to know what is what. thanks, L